Author
Topic: Development of Doctrine (Read 18337 times)

I recently listened to a podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko about the Orthodox opinion of the development of doctrine. What I found interesting was that he unpacks as the Orthodox view seems the same as the Catholic view to me. What am I missing? Where do we really disagree?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I recently listened to a podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko about the Orthodox opinion of the development of doctrine. What I found interesting was that he unpacks as the Orthodox view seems the same as the Catholic view to me. What am I missing? Where do we really disagree?

Lawrence

Could you very briefly summarize what you gleaned from Fr. Hopko and your understanding the Latin view?

In brief, there is no such thing as new doctrine. We are able to apply doctrine in new ways as our world changes but there isn't any new doctrine. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity has never changed, but how the Christian world defines it has--at least from the first council until the third.

That's a nice thought. However, the Assumption of Mary kinda shows that doctrine isn't only developed, but is also completely innovated in the Roman Church.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 08:32:13 AM by TristanCross »

Logged

"Let the mouth also fast from disgraceful speeches and railings. For what does it profit if we abstain from fish and fowl and yet bite and devour our brothers and sisters? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother and bites the body of his neighbor. "— St. John Chrysostom

"Let the mouth also fast from disgraceful speeches and railings. For what does it profit if we abstain from fish and fowl and yet bite and devour our brothers and sisters? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother and bites the body of his neighbor. "— St. John Chrysostom

LOL...well all right then. I admit we are a suspect bunch but I do hope some day you give the Immaculate Conception another look. It is a very beautiful and holy teaching that has, over time, had support among Orthodox believers, and still does in fact albeit VERY privately

Also go and read the document on the Assumption before you parrot what you have heard about it.

Human beings are "conceived in sin." Scripture and Tradition attest to this.

Both East and West have celebrated the "immaculate" or "spotless" or "pure" or "all holy" Mother of God since the early centuries.

The feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mary was an ancient feast.

Well, as the centuries passed, Christians began to reflect: What kind of conception of the pure and immaculate Mother of God was this? Could she have been conceived in sin, or was she redeemed at the moment of her conception?

It didn't just pop up in 1854. It was the product of centuries of exhaustive theological discussion and debate. Development of doctrine, of course. And it wasn't spearheaded by the Pope.

LOL...well all right then. I admit we are a suspect bunch but I do hope some day you give the Immaculate Conception another look. It is a very beautiful and holy teaching that has, over time, had support among Orthodox believers, and still does in fact albeit VERY privately

Also go and read the document on the Assumption before you parrot what you have heard about it.

I always found it ironic that the strongest Patristic witness we have for it is from the Eastern, not Western, Fathers.

But you're right that before 20th century Orthodox started to reject Original Sin, the IC wasn't as controversial for them.

Also go and read the document on the Assumption before you parrot what you have heard about it.

The only thing remotely questionable from an Orthodox POV in this document is the tie that is made into IC. Other than that, even though it is not in the definition itself (which some theologians may think makes it "optional"), the fact that Mary suffered bodily death is mentioned in the document (which alongside the patristic witness chould clear up any confusion on the matter for RC theologians).

Also go and read the document on the Assumption before you parrot what you have heard about it.

The only thing remotely questionable from an Orthodox POV in this document is the tie that is made into IC. Other than that, even though it is not in the definition itself (which some theologians may think makes it "optional"), the fact that Mary suffered bodily death is mentioned in the document (which alongside the patristic witness chould clear up any confusion on the matter for RC theologians).

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

Boggles the mind. But it also confirms me, in my own mind and heart, when I say there are not heresies in the Catholic Church. They exist purely and simply, speaking charitably, in the mind of the eastern Orthodox.

I recently listened to a podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko about the Orthodox opinion of the development of doctrine. What I found interesting was that he unpacks as the Orthodox view seems the same as the Catholic view to me. What am I missing? Where do we really disagree?

Lawrence

So far as I can tell, there's little to no difference between what Cardinal Newman proposed and what intelligent Orthodox believe. Where the problems come in is when Catholics point to doctrine X or Y, which Orthodox don't accept or believe, and the Catholics say "that's an example of a development of doctrine". The Orthodox then get the impression that "development of doctrine" either means, or is a cover for, inventing new doctrines that weren't believed before. But so far as I could tell from reading him, Cardinal Newman never meant anything like that... he wasn't talking about the creation of new doctrines, or even modifying or magnifying old doctrines, but rather something more like a progression of understanding of doctrines that were already in place in the ancient Church. The term "development of doctrine" is really a rather unfortunate and confusing one, then, because it's not the doctrines that develop--indeed, they stay exactly the same--but rather it's our understanding of the doctrine that develops or grows.

Also go and read the document on the Assumption before you parrot what you have heard about it.

The only thing remotely questionable from an Orthodox POV in this document is the tie that is made into IC. Other than that, even though it is not in the definition itself (which some theologians may think makes it "optional"), the fact that Mary suffered bodily death is mentioned in the document (which alongside the patristic witness chould clear up any confusion on the matter for RC theologians).

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

Boggles the mind. But it also confirms me, in my own mind and heart, when I say there are not heresies in the Catholic Church. They exist purely and simply, speaking charitably, in the mind of the eastern Orthodox.

What you may mean is that Roman Catholics sincerely believe in these doctrines and you can draw from elements of Tradition and Scripture to defend them.

What we mean is that these doctrines were unheard of previously. You "developed" them from what you think has been implied. We are hesitant to accept newly articulated doctrines. We also think several of these lead to error, such as the immaculate conception which is what we mean by a heresy.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Also go and read the document on the Assumption before you parrot what you have heard about it.

The only thing remotely questionable from an Orthodox POV in this document is the tie that is made into IC. Other than that, even though it is not in the definition itself (which some theologians may think makes it "optional"), the fact that Mary suffered bodily death is mentioned in the document (which alongside the patristic witness chould clear up any confusion on the matter for RC theologians).

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

Boggles the mind. But it also confirms me, in my own mind and heart, when I say there are not heresies in the Catholic Church. They exist purely and simply, speaking charitably, in the mind of the eastern Orthodox.

What you may mean is that Roman Catholics sincerely believe in these doctrines and you can draw from elements of Tradition and Scripture to defend them.

What we mean is that these doctrines were unheard of previously. You "developed" them from what you think has been implied. We are hesitant to accept newly articulated doctrines. We also think several of these lead to error, such as the immaculate conception which is what we mean by a heresy.

Absolutely. And this kind of perspective and expression leaves wide open the door to dialogue in good faith, and I think that is what is happening.

There's plenty for Orthodoxy to be concerned about at several levels. The papal Church has been most severe and unkind on occasion and doctrinally, if not theologically, imperial, and could easily be so again. That is not something I would be eager to see happen.

But to build a wall of theological dissonance is not at all necessary and is harmful to the faithful...so again the ants get trampled when the elephants begin to trumpet.

That's a nice thought. However, the Assumption of Mary kinda shows that doctrine isn't only developed, but is also completely innovated in the Roman Church.

Really...how so?

Potuit, decuit ergo fecit.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 11:27:44 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Human beings are "conceived in sin." Scripture and Tradition attest to this.

Both East and West have celebrated the "immaculate" or "spotless" or "pure" or "all holy" Mother of God since the early centuries.

The feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mary was an ancient feast.

Well, as the centuries passed, Christians began to reflect: What kind of conception of the pure and immaculate Mother of God was this? Could she have been conceived in sin, or was she redeemed at the moment of her conception?

It didn't just pop up in 1854. It was the product of centuries of exhaustive theological discussion and debate. Development of doctrine, of course. And it wasn't spearheaded by the Pope.

just his minions.

In the case of the IC, you have the problem that even in the West it was denounced as an innovation when it first appeared. So yes, your answer didn't pop up in 1854, it just went from being condemned as heresy to denouncing rejection of it as heresy.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

LOL...well all right then. I admit we are a suspect bunch but I do hope some day you give the Immaculate Conception another look. It is a very beautiful and holy teaching that has, over time, had support among Orthodox believers, and still does in fact albeit VERY privately

Also go and read the document on the Assumption before you parrot what you have heard about it.

I always found it ironic that the strongest Patristic witness we have for it is from the Eastern, not Western, Fathers.

But you're right that before 20th century Orthodox started to reject Original Sin, the IC wasn't as controversial for them.

It is still not controversial. It is just heresy, pure and simple. And with all that Eastern patristics, we never felt the need for the IC. So much for the Western maxim, potuit, decuit ergo fecit.

Oh, and we never adopted Augustinian speculation on Ancestral sin, and didn't wait until the 20th century to so state.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I recently listened to a podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko about the Orthodox opinion of the development of doctrine. What I found interesting was that he unpacks as the Orthodox view seems the same as the Catholic view to me. What am I missing? Where do we really disagree?

Lawrence

So far as I can tell, there's little to no difference between what Cardinal Newman proposed and what intelligent Orthodox believe. Where the problems come in is when Catholics point to doctrine X or Y, which Orthodox don't accept or believe, and the Catholics say "that's an example of a development of doctrine". The Orthodox then get the impression that "development of doctrine" either means, or is a cover for, inventing new doctrines that weren't believed before. But so far as I could tell from reading him, Cardinal Newman never meant anything like that... he wasn't talking about the creation of new doctrines, or even modifying or magnifying old doctrines, but rather something more like a progression of understanding of doctrines that were already in place in the ancient Church. The term "development of doctrine" is really a rather unfortunate and confusing one, then, because it's not the doctrines that develop--indeed, they stay exactly the same--but rather it's our understanding of the doctrine that develops or grows.

So the dogma of the development of doctrine is an example of development of doctrine.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So the dogma of the development of doctrine is an example of development of doctrine.

Indeed He is risen!

I suppose it might be said to have developed (ie. our understanding of it got better)... according to the description of development that I gave in my post, which has nothing to do with inventing new doctrines, but rather is about a progression of understanding of doctrines that were part of the original teachings given to the Apostles. I find this idea perfectly compatible with what St. Gregory the Theologian said:

"The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun's light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated." - Oration 31, 26

Also go and read the document on the Assumption before you parrot what you have heard about it.

The only thing remotely questionable from an Orthodox POV in this document is the tie that is made into IC. Other than that, even though it is not in the definition itself (which some theologians may think makes it "optional"), the fact that Mary suffered bodily death is mentioned in the document (which alongside the patristic witness chould clear up any confusion on the matter for RC theologians).

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

Boggles the mind. But it also confirms me, in my own mind and heart, when I say there are not heresies in the Catholic Church. They exist purely and simply, speaking charitably, in the mind of the eastern Orthodox.

You are right: evidently, your mind is quite boggled.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So the dogma of the development of doctrine is an example of development of doctrine.

Indeed He is risen!

I suppose it might be said to have developed (ie. our understanding of it got better)... according to the description of development that I gave in my post, which has nothing to do with inventing new doctrines, but rather is about a progression of understanding of doctrines that were part of the original teachings given to the Apostles. I find this idea perfectly compatible with what St. Gregory the Theologian said:

"The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun's light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated." - Oration 31, 26

Is the IC the only "invented" Catholic doctrine in the mind of Orthodox? Are there other examples?

Papal universal jurisdiction

Papal infallibility and the authority to personally proclaim universal dogma

Some of the more specific details concerning purgatory

Indulgences

Some of the things that have been said in defense of the filioque - The Father and the Son are the one principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds for example

Those are at least some the main doctrinal issues that come to mind.

Dependence/promotion of "visionaries" and their teachings/cults.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Great examples. What strikes me is that development of doctrine (the way it was explained by Fr. Hopko and the way it makes sense to me) happens organically and is sort only made official when the issue is forced (hence the councils). However, the so called Catholic doctrines which Orthodox disagree with seem to have defined without any great need.

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption. This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God. It stands as a grand example of why we don't doctrinize or dogmatize every theological opinion.

Great examples. What strikes me is that development of doctrine (the way it was explained by Fr. Hopko and the way it makes sense to me) happens organically and is sort only made official when the issue is forced (hence the councils). However, the so called Catholic doctrines which Orthodox disagree with seem to have defined without any great need.

That is a major issue with them. A lot of Catholic developed doctrine seems to have just become popular over time, and more recently popes have just declared pet opinions to be dogma (Pius IX and the Immaculate Conception, for example). I grant credit to the Catholic Church that Transubstantiation seems to have "developed" in a way that would be acceptable in Orthodoxy (although without the Church, and therefore suspect anyway).

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not),

It's what the fathers recorded and we sing about in hymns and prayers. It is our tradition that after the Theotokos died, her body was glorified and reunited to her soul in heaven.

Quote

I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I just find it unnecessary to define, unless there was some sort of controversy in the west that required it. Was there?

Quote

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

It serves to show her as the great example of one of us receiving the inheritance that is promised to those who persevere in faith. As I've heard said before, Jesus wasn't raised from the dead so our souls could go to heaven after our bodies die, but so that we could be raised from the dead and have true life eternally.

Quote

It stands as a grand example of why we don't doctrinize or dogmatize every theological opinion.

Only ones that come under attack. Lack of a formal definition doesn't make a universally liturgically celebrated truth any less true.

I grant credit to the Catholic Church that Transubstantiation seems to have "developed" in a way that would be acceptable in Orthodoxy (although without the Church, and therefore suspect anyway).

They believe the same thing but use different terminology to describe it. They had to formally define it when the Eucharist came under attack by the Protestants, which when pushed to react to Protestantism, our initial reaction was to use their latin terminology to defend our doctrine on this matter until we could develop our own articulation of what we believe.

Great examples. What strikes me is that development of doctrine (the way it was explained by Fr. Hopko and the way it makes sense to me) happens organically and is sort only made official when the issue is forced (hence the councils).

The few Catholics that I've talked to about stuff like this have no problem with the Orthodox explanation as opposed to the traditional Roman terminology. I personally find Orthodox way of describing these things to make more sense, but then again that's just my personal opinion on how I came to learn and accept certain things. Maybe it has to do with Roman teaching being a direct response to Protestantism on western terms, where Orthodoxy doesn't have that same immediate historical necessity.

Quote

However, the so called Catholic doctrines which Orthodox disagree with seem to have defined without any great need.

I find it puzzling why the only two real known "ex cathedra" statements both came after the definition claiming the Pope always had that authority, and were not based in any real controversy that required a formal definition.

I think the papal dogmas devoloped out of a specific situation particular to a specific time and place under specific conditions (which can only exist in schism with Orthodoxy). Not supporting them, only saying that I can see how they came about and the necessity of the Pope in europe in the middle ages as a center of unity for the west and in isolation of the east.

Everything else that really matters, I think stems from defining points with unnecessary precision (time in purgatory, literal fire, strict use of legal terminology, inserting additions to the creed, etc). I just read a book on the Council of Florence and St Mark's original opposition to the filioque, was simply that the creed was universally decided to remain unchanged and no one bishop had the authority to override that. He used the Council of Ephesus as an example where the council dogmatically defended the use of the term "Theotokos", but refused to insert it into the creed even though it would have been doctrinally sound and was being used to combat heresy at the time.

I grant credit to the Catholic Church that Transubstantiation seems to have "developed" in a way that would be acceptable in Orthodoxy (although without the Church, and therefore suspect anyway).

They believe the same thing but use different terminology to describe it. They had to formally define it when the Eucharist came under attack by the Protestants, which when pushed to react to Protestantism, our initial reaction was to use their latin terminology to defend our doctrine on this matter until we could develop our own articulation of what we believe.

Thank you. This is what I have always believed (since I have been Catholic, anyway) was the reason for the Catholic Church such precisely defined language when speaking of the Eucharist (rather than just saying it is a mystery). We had a much larger encounter with Protestantism in the West and had to figure out a way to clarify our teachings on the Eucharist in comparison to the plethora of other teachings which were springing up (consubstantiation, sacramental union, memorialism, etc.). It is nice to hear an Eastern Orthodox Christian recognize the reason behind our adoption of the term "transubstantiation" rather than, what so often happens, just criticizing it.

I grant credit to the Catholic Church that Transubstantiation seems to have "developed" in a way that would be acceptable in Orthodoxy (although without the Church, and therefore suspect anyway).

They believe the same thing but use different terminology to describe it. They had to formally define it when the Eucharist came under attack by the Protestants, which when pushed to react to Protestantism, our initial reaction was to use their latin terminology to defend our doctrine on this matter until we could develop our own articulation of what we believe.

Thank you. This is what I have always believed (since I have been Catholic, anyway) was the reason for the Catholic Church such precisely defined language when speaking of the Eucharist (rather than just saying it is a mystery). We had a much larger encounter with Protestantism in the West and had to figure out a way to clarify our teachings on the Eucharist in comparison to the plethora of other teachings which were springing up (consubstantiation, sacramental union, memorialism, etc.). It is nice to hear an Eastern Orthodox Christian recognize the reason behind our adoption of the term "transubstantiation" rather than, what so often happens, just criticizing it.

FWIW, Fr. Thomas Hopko would certainly disagree with the OP. I've listened to nearly a thousand hours of the man speak.

There are numerous doctrinal developments within RC that Fr. Thom takes incredible issue with, even when he is trying to be at his most ecumenical.

I can see why listening to a little of Fr. Thom why folks consider him an ueber-ecumenist. Especially in his seminars, he doesn't want to get to derailed into the sorta discussions we have here on OC.net, but is more concerned whether OCs are truly living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ as he understands it within the context of the OC.

To that end, he will write off the typically more divisive issues and typical arguments folks might have who attend weekend seminars in lieu of "evangelization". Fr. Thom is more concerned that, it seems to me, the OCs truly understand and take seriously the Gospel and what they are DOING rather than what they are SAYING or THINKING.

For him, there is plenty of chatter about the latter two, but too little honest discussion about the first.

The criticism I have heard before is that, since "transubstantiation" is rooted in philosophical lingo rather than being strictly patristic, it should not be used to describe the Holy Eucharist.

Fwiw...

"At the same time, the Latins interpret the Sacraments in a legal and philosophical way. Hence, in the Eucharist, using the right material things (bread and wine) and pronouncing the correct formula, changes their substance (transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. The visible elements or this and all Sacraments are merely "signs" of the presence of God. The Orthodox call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the faithful consume is mysteriously the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine, because it would be wholly repugnant to eat "real" human flesh and drink "real" human blood." - Source

The criticism I have heard before is that, since "transubstantiation" is rooted in philosophical lingo rather than being strictly patristic, it should not be used to describe the Holy Eucharist.

Fwiw...

"At the same time, the Latins interpret the Sacraments in a legal and philosophical way. Hence, in the Eucharist, using the right material things (bread and wine) and pronouncing the correct formula, changes their substance (transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. The visible elements or this and all Sacraments are merely "signs" of the presence of God. The Orthodox call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the faithful consume is mysteriously the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine, because it would be wholly repugnant to eat "real" human flesh and drink "real" human blood." - Source

FWIW, Fr. Thomas Hopko would certainly disagree with the OP. I've listened to nearly a thousand hours of the man speak.

There are numerous doctrinal developments within RC that Fr. Thom takes incredible issue with, even when he is trying to be at his most ecumenical...

I don't think he would. My OP was not making the point that Fr. Hopko agrees with RC doctrine or the development there of. My point was that his definition of "development of doctrine" seemed to match the Catholic definition. Prior to hearing him give his definition, I did not realize the Orthodox Church had such a concept.